The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1887-10-05

bAhg bS thtiAA11 W hnfNs 1NAAN1 HSA4~
comment.
THE UNIVERSITY KE-oPESs THE MATTEE.
In the first place, Mr. Howry's views as
to the hnslity of the settlement are not
concurred in by the University itself. In
the pamphlet before referred to, on page
169, we are distinctly informed that the
statute of 1880 settles not finally the debt.
as Mr.. Howry contends, but only ''the
principle of the matter" But 'as to the
AMOUNT (see italics in the pamphiet) re-
cognized TO be due, the University claims
that the sum is much greater than that
named in the act" We are then informed /
"that the amount now due the University, |
in fact, by the State is very near if not |
quite two millions of dollars-the interest |
on which would be about 100000 per
annum on the basis established by the State |
in the act of lS43, or about $4,000 per
annum at the legal rate of interest" This
statement Is not made as showing the
generosity Of the University as a creditor
in relieving the State from so large a debt
but to emphasize its right to what it has
got. We are, however, informed that the
university is not AT PRESENT demanding
this amount" (S2,OO0,COO) 'of the State"
Yet, though there is no issue between
the State and the University, still
"the University has not abandoned the
hope, but on the contrary rests securely IN
the expectation that at some future day, IN
the not REMOTE future, when the crushing
losses of the war have been measurably
repaired, the State will do her the fullest
justice"
What there is of fnality in this 1 am
unable to perceive. The Tes ddjudieGtd it
seems extends only TO the principles of the
acknowledgements interest at per
q
settled, then, in the not remote future, we
are expected TO adjust the balance; of
course on the same principles, thus settled.
"There could not be a clearer or more en-
phatic' Ito use the language of the
pamphlet), challenge to every tax payer in
the State 10 investigate the whole matter,
both as to the principles involved and the
amount claimed. The instinct of self
preservation would demand this. This
principle of res ddjudjoofa here invoked by
Mr.. Howry, and / doubt not with entire
good faith, seems to bind only one party
THE PEOPLE AND TAX-PAYERs or THE STATE
and leaves the other entirely free to make
forays on the Treasury, whenever it suits
Its convenience OF its taste to do so, or
whenever the chronic disease with which it
has always been afflicted-Sits pressing
wants" "fOr an increase Of reyenue," should
remedy. In 1S48 we had a settlement,
which on the principle of res dgjudicata
ought to have been final both az TO the
principles and the amount. 1t was &C
quiesced in by the University for many
long years, when that institution was man
aged by the ablest jurists in all the State.
When an attempt was made to reopen it in
1856 by Gov. McBae and Mr. Thompson,
as | have heretofore explained, this adjudi-
cation Of lS48 was again affirmed in the
most solemn manner. IL was never re-
opened till 1880, and then in the mode /
have stated. 1 do not believe that fraud
or intentional injustice was committed in
the passage of that act, but that it was
founded on grave and most serious mis-
take / think has been demonstrated
Mr.. Howry, like a good and upright
man as he is, expresses his willingness to
reopen the matter if only the State will
pay any additional sum that may be found
against her. Most certainly this is correct;
but il is equally so that the University shall
give security to repay all sums that it has
received over and and above what were its
just dues. The University pamphlet says
the University is not the States pensioner,
but its creditor. Occupying that relation,
and not looking to the bounty and gen
erosity of the good people of the State, but
exacting from their toll and poverty its al
legged legal demands, it is but just that what
ever it may have received over and above
this legal demand, and especially such rs
it received under the superstition and be-
lief of the people, that the debt as fixed
by the act of !S4S, and affirmed in 1856,
was the only debt owed it to the University,
should be returned, if it should endeavor
to increase its demand. Any other terms
of re-opening this matter on the basis
suggested by Mr.. Howry would be but
again TO perpetuate the heresy that only
the people of the State, and not the Uni
versity, should be bound by final adjudi-
cation.
LET THE SUPREME COURT SETTLE THE MATTER.
You, gentlemen of the Committee, need
not, nor need the people of the State, be
inundated by the suggestion of an addi-
ton TO your debt if the case be re-opened. |
OF course there will be contentious and |
disputes as to the amount due. These dis |
putes and contentious will never be settled, |
as shown by the persistent claim of the |
University above noticed, for an additional |
sum in the future mot remote) The mat |
ter can only be put finally to rest, if at all, |
by judicial determination. Let law be |
passed for this purpose, requiring the /
speedy action of the courts, including |
always an appeal to the Supreme Court /
for final action Let the court be required, |
as the committee in 1880 was required, to
state the account and ascertain the indebt-
edness of the State, unaffected by the act
of 1880. OF course if the courts are left
to be guided by that act-that being the
law of the land--the courts can do nothing
more nor less than to decree that that law
acknowledges debt and they will find
NO fbo, fha |
sum named in that act, and without inves-
tigating the justice or injustice or the
legality OF the sum declared due. have
heard there may be a reply to this paper,
but such reply will not do if it merely
points out immaterial inaccuracies, or COM
plains of its methods or impeaches the
motives of its author. The only sufficient
reply viii be statement Of the account be-
t,ceeR The State and the UHiUersity, Snoring that
the URirersity had legal debt against the State
on the frst Of January, 1850, of $544, 061.23.
If this can be done, of course all have
said goes for naught If it cannot, then
from that time on, rs long as that act of
1880 remains ON the statute book, it will be
fraud on the people of the State, as it
now is grave error and burden, though
founded on an innocent mistake.
ONLY THE DEBT OF STATE TO UNIVERSITY
HEREIN DISCUSSED.
am not allowed by the terms of your
letter TO say what think of the policy of
sustaining literally or otherwise the Uni
versity by donations from the Treasury.
The wish that l should not do so was empha-
sized by your Chairman when he delivered
your letter, so | shall say nothing on that
subject, except that nothing herein is to be
construed as implying that I am opposed
to liberal donations to it. L am here deal
ing with il ONLY AS AN ALLEGED CREDITOR of
the State. If any person be curious to know
what so humble citizen as / am may
think on that subject, refer him to a let
ter which / shall shortly write to /. r. Heg. +,
gle, Esq, of Walden, Miss, in answer to
one from him now lying on my desk, ask
ing my views on that subject, and also on !
the subject of appropriations to the other
State Colleges.
have now answered your letter so far
as / am able. have referred you to the ,
books and documents wherein you can
find the information on which have pro- ;
ceeded. l have stated to you the prin- ]
ciples of law applicable to these facts so
far as | understood them. If l am mis- !,
taken in any fact, that mistake can be =
shown. If am charged to be mistaken in :
the principles of law rely on, there is a | :
tribunal, the Supreme Court of the State, !,
composed of great and Just lawyers, which !,
can settle that issue to the satisfaction of 1
all. Its decision l invoke, and with its !
Judgment the whole people will be satisfied. !
II the debt is a just and legal demand against !
the people of the State, it ought to be paid :
or the interest paid promptly. If, however, &
it is not legal demand, but merely an OBJ
legation to make appropriations in the
shape of interest" there is no rule Of
right or of public policy which can justify :